User talk:Tomintoul

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

—  Ree dy  12:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Source parameter
I can answer that question for you. The source parameter was added to a certain template that is on the page you created. Therefore it had to be added retroactively to all articles. That is all. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Brian Paterson
I have nominated Brian Paterson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Brian Paterson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

2nd opinion
Please review my re-write of Military art.

If you please, I invite your comments at Talk:Military art and at Talk:War artist. --Tenmei (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Salesian College Battersea
Re Article Salesian College (London), I am the one who added the name of Tom Champagne to the list of notable alumni. I was at school with him back in the 1950s/60s and can vouch for his notability - not least on the grounds stipulated: namely, that he was the signatory of a junk mailing - ahem, circular letter - inviting people to participate in the Reader's Digest lottery. He retired from this post a few years ago, but not before he had imposed his name on large sectors of the public consciousness. Are you a Battersea Old Boy yourself, might I enquire? If so, do you consider that makes you arbiter of 'notable' v 'non-notable'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.252.175 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki has strict notability criteria and and you have not demonstrated he is/was notable. Normally a notable person will have their own Wiki article. At the very least he should be referenced against an independent reliable source.Tomintoul (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Apprentice
Firstly, the wording you have used for this section is not WP:NPOV. Secondly, due to the nature of the content of the section, it absolutely must be properly referenced as per WP:RS and WP:V before it can be included. Do not add the section back until it is written from a neutral perspective and properly referenced. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Cupid's Green1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cupid's Green1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Cupid's Green2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cupid's Green2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Portrait of "Dusty" Rhodes by Ashley George Old.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Portrait of "Dusty" Rhodes by Ashley George Old.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Works by Ashley George Old

 * I'm really glad to see these images in good order. I quite like the two landscapes. They'll be a great addition to the wiki commons --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Picture of 2007 floods
Hello, I'm very sorry about the time it's taken to reply to your post. I didn't realise anyone had posted on my talk page. If you're still planning to use/have used the image you may do so without any reference to me. Once again, please accept my apologies for the delay for my reply. CR7 (message me) 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP policy on contentious material
You are restoring contentious, poorly sourced material and conjecture regarding a living person that has been removed on WP:BLP grounds based on policy and OTRS raised concerns. This information cannot be restored until and unless there is concensus to do so - the onus is on you to prove that the sources are adequate and cover all of the information you are looking to add. The best place for review is WP:BLPN where a number of editors can review the content to ensure what material, if any, should be included. As an administrator and the OTRS agent handling this concern, I am providing a clear warning that if you continue to restore material that has been clearly identified as being a WP:BLP violation prior to seeking the consensus required by policy you may be blocked from editing. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of House Move Costs UK
Hello Tomintoul,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged House Move Costs UK for deletion, because it doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Hydriz (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tomintoul! While this page may contain accurate data, I have some doubts about it being inside an encyclopedia. Perhaps expand the article even more so that we can all better understand what the article is about? Thanks! --Hydriz (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Retitle and tweak
Greetings, I've retitled the article to WP standards, and to make its intent clearer: Cost of moving house in the United Kingdom. However, there's still the issue that it's written more like an essay than an article. I'd suggest taking a look at some articles on similar subjects to see how they're phrased and organised.

For a start, note that Wikipedia articles don't start out "Background: This article is to tell you more about Richard III..." There's a pretty set standard for how to write the introductory para of an article, so I suggest you give that a shot. Following, you have to ensure that you're not veering into WP:Original research, or presenting an persuasive argument. The idea is not to cover uncovered topics, but to summarise what's already being said in authoritative publications (the definition of an encyclopedia).

Feel free to shoot me a line with any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

FAR
I have nominated The Apprentice (UK TV series) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=566059003 your edit] to Up Series may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2005 Channel 4 programme, the series topped the list of The 50 Greatest Documentaries.

About Time
Hi. Just to let you know I've removed the section you added on "Debated Plot Flaws" to About Time (2013 film). I did this because it appeared to be entirely your own original analysis of the plot. It didn't indicate who is having the referenced "debate" (other than a weaselly "some") and didn't cite any of its content, other than the two critics at the end, which I have moved to the Reception section.

If you have some reliable sources that contain the debate you refer to then you may wish to re-add the content, without undue emphasis, and appropriate cites. Otherwise you'll understand that Wikipedia cannot contain you original research. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I created this section, but the extended analysis was done by another editor. I made some changes to this, but I agree it still contains too much subjective analysis. I will give it further thought.Tomintoul (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 Church  Talk 20:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK
ping!} [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz] (talk)

DYK for Arthur Moon
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Major Moon Collection Catalogue Cover.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Major Moon Collection Catalogue Cover.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shelter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom
Sorry, my last edit summary on Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom read "clarified as per talk page", it should have said "clarified" but autofill decided to do the rest Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Cost of moving in the United Kingdom for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cost of moving in the United Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cost of moving in the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Oxford to Cambridge Expressway


A tag has been placed on Oxford to Cambridge Expressway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/571353/oxford-to-cambridge-expressway-strategic-study-stage-3-report.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Winged Blades Godric 08:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The material is available under an Open Government Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. This can be done by adding the following immediately after your citation: " This article contains quotations from this source, which is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0. © Crown copyright.". I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hemel Hempstead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hemel_Hempstead check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hemel_Hempstead?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's/its
I firmly believe that Google keyboard autocorrect will be responsible for this silly grammatical error becoming accepted as normal, like "me and Kate met HMQ" and "St James' halo" seem to have become, though for different reasons. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Expressway
I think we've been a little at cross purposes,so I hope my latest edit satisfies your concern while recognising how much already exists east of the M1.

btw and I know that it is wp:crystal and can't go in but I don't believe that there is either the money or the political will to write off the existing A34 east of Botley in favour of an entirely new cross country route from Abingdon. My bet is that the new route will pick up from the A41 just west of Bicester, swing around it probably to the south then head east to M1 J13. The broad fan of route options are just deliberate sacrificial lambs, "see we've listened and abandoned those ideas (that we never took seriously in the first place)." --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks good. I have made a further minor change.Tomintoul (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think the background is now a bit thin (and highlights that it should never have been lost in the "Route" section in the first place, probably contributing to the cross purposes). I'm reading https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/739893/strategic-outline-business-case.pdf at the moment, which is the September rewrite of the business case (and not just an update). Hard going! But hopefully I'll be able to pull out a one or two sentence summary[!]. I've found already that dualling the last section of the A428 (to the A1) is in planning window 2015-19, though unclear as yet what that means in terms of an actual date for boots on the ground. Based on the progres of EWR, I'm not holding my breath. Tough on the people living in the corridors though - sword over the head for next ten maybe twenty years. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see talk page
SNAP! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I support you only because of WP:BRD. I don't see an obvious argument for WP:NPOV, so invite you to make it there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

BRD
To summarise wp:BRD: if someone makes a bold edit, you can revert and invite them in the edit summary to discuss it at the talk page. If they just reinstate, there is going to be little you can do about it. Counter-reverting just invites another reinstatement and then you come up against the three-revert rule and you risk getting blocked for edit-warring. So it is best to start the talk page discussion yourself and invite the opposing editor to explain themselves there. Hopefully others will weigh in, though of course they may not agree with you. If there are no contributions, try inviting [in neutral terms] other eyes at the relevant WikiProject talk page. Note that WP:ANI will not involve itself in content disputes but only anti-social behaviour and the like.

See also Edit warring. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)